meindzai wrote:Such questions lead to a thicket of views because they are the wrong question. They are inappropriate, they do not lead to awakening.

Why? How?

The reason those questions lead to suffering is because they assume existence or non-existence. But those questions arise due to one's own attention, and are bound to cease. So assuming existence or non-existence involves holding to something that arises and passes away - thereby subjecting oneself to stress that is unnecessary.SN 12.15: Kaccāyanagottasutta"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Seeing this clearly is what involves the attainment of Stream-Entry (Sotāpanna):Mv 1.23.1-10: Upatissa-pasine"Whatever phenomena arise from cause: their cause and their cessation. Such is the teaching of the Tathagata, the Great Contemplative."Then to Sariputta the Wanderer, as he heard this Dhamma exposition, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

And about your question before, I quote the suttas because they are very clear and much more of an authority than me. We're not trying to make our own Dhamma here. If you find something in the suttas unclear, feel free to bring it up.

vinasp wrote:A belief in rebirth was expected of those on the wrong path. Since they had a "view of self" they would not ask "What is reborn?", for them, it was obvious.

This statement has no basis in the Canon as shown above by the Tiṃsamattasutta quote. It also implies that the Buddha lied just to get people to practice.

meindzai wrote:Such questions lead to a thicket of views because they are the wrong question. They are inappropriate, they do not lead to awakening.

Why? How?

The reason those questions lead to suffering is because they assume existence or non-existence. But those questions arise due to one's own attention, and are bound to cease. So assuming existence or non-existence involves holding to something that arises and passes away - thereby subjecting oneself to stress that is unnecessary.

Hmmm. Good answer. Thank you. =D

And about your question before, I quote the suttas because they are very clear and much more of an authority than me. We're not trying to make our own Dhamma here. If you find something in the suttas unclear, feel free to bring it up.

I disagree that the suttas are "very clear". One look at the different ways people understand the kalama sutta is enough to convince me of that.

Chula wrote:There is something called right view. Having right view doesn't mean you're trying to have no views - that would be a view in itself. About the importance of right view:AN 10.176: Cundakammāraputtasutta[i]"He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

Thank you for taking the time to answer, Chula.

But there is a big difference between the nihilist view in your example above, and "no view". The Buddha taught us not to cling to views; this is not the same as having a nihilistic view. The nihilist clings to a view that there is no <this or that>. The Buddha's way is to not cling to views of things you haven't actually experience for yourself*; it is viewless, not nihilistic.

* Once you have experienced something and given it an accurate look with the tools the Buddha gave you, it should not be a "view" anymore -- for example, seeing that thoughts come and go and are impermanent is not a "view" it's an understanding of how things are based on experience.

"What" is reborn would be the wrong question. The question should be "how" is there rebirth.

And yet you answer this question below, with the words: "Craving is what takes one to rebirth." Should I then ask you, "How is craving?" Craving is a *what*.

Chula wrote:

nowheat wrote:*Something* ties the new being to the old being and I can't figure out what that is. But something does, else how could the Buddha have seen all his past lives? I want to know what the Buddha says it is, and what it arises from, since he clearly says that nothing arises spontaneously.

Craving is what takes one to rebirth. Whenever you speak of "something" being reborn, you're implicitly bringing in self-view (sakkhāyaditthi). And that arises because of inappropriate attention (ayoniso manasikhāra):SN 41.3: Isidattasutta[i]"But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?""There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... assumes form to be the self,...

However, I am not bringing in self-view. Just because I use common language like "what" does not mean I am saying the "what" has self. There is no "implicit" self in the word "what" -- "what" -- like everything else, has no self. You are not alone here in having the view that words that can cover objects must always cover objects (like the word "what" which can cover a rock, but also covers craving, which is not an object), but this is a view that is in the mind of the readers.